Enough with the bigotry against gays!

The Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Pace (USMC) recently said that homosexual acts are immoral. According to the article, Pace said “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts…” This is a personal opinion. Should personal opinion come into play when debating whether or not to support the thousands of gay troops, some of whom are fighting in Iraq?

I am tired of Christians labeling the gay lifestyle as immoral and using that to justify bigotry, intolerance and even hate-crimes. Why do they label it as immoral? The short answer is that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and therefore immoral.

This is that same Bible that says:

Women should keep silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34)

Women should not have braided hair, or wear gold, pearls or costly clothing (1 Timothy 2:9)

I could go on with examples of commands in the Bible to which a majority of Christiandom no longer subscribes based simply on social progression. However, they ignore scientific and psychological studies that show homosexuality is not necessarily a choice, but a part of humanity that has existed throughout history.

The Bible has been used to justify genocide, wars, racism, misogyny, intolerance and even slavery. Now the majority of us look back in disbelief that slavery could ever be a justifiable act.

Sometime in the future, homosexuals will be integrated as members of society with all the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. On that day, we will look back in disbelief that we ever condoned bigotry against this group of individuals.

Just one brief correction. The Bible says homosexual acts are sins, not homosexuality. The Bible says that any sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin.

You have some faulty logic here. (This isn’t surprising as your emotions may be clouding your ability to think clearly.) The fact that A has been used to justify B doesn’t make A invalid.

With regard to slavery, it was a universal practice throughout the world until it was abolished at the impetus of Christians. The only reason you are able to look back in disbelief is because Christians prevailed against it.

Simple proof-texting out of a religion’s holy book is hardly a way to make any valid point that will stand up under the under reasonable philosophical scrutiny. One might think you are condoning bigotry against Christians. This could be used to justify crimes of religious hatred.

2.Drew | March 14, 2007 at 3:19 am

Just one brief correction. The Bible says homosexual acts are sins, not homosexuality. The Bible says that any sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin.

Dave, so if homosexuals were married would their sexual activity be ok?:

Personally, I’m an advocate of ending all intolerance (including those against Christians). I believe The de-Convert does not want to make this blog a constantly rant against Christians but only against beliefs that should be considered immoral (misogyny, discrimination, intolerance, racism, etc.). I agree. To use an ancient text to define morality is a bit naive. Especially one that supports genocides and killings (see http://literalbible.blogspot.com/search/label/Killings for a sample). These are immoral acts by God. Who should be judged more, a homosexual or those who massacred men, women, children, and babies?

I think you misunderstood my question. I asked what you use to define morality. The implication of what you wrote is that morality is defined on a individual basis. In other words, what is evil (or good) to you may not be the same as what is evil (or good) to me, but both are equally valid.

You said using ancient texts is naive. What is your epistemological basis for defining morality?

Please realize that what you probably view as an “absolute” morality was developed first by a group of desert nomads (who’s morality is no better than Hitler or Saddam … see link posted above) and then by a group wanting to reform this twisted view of morality by combining it with the philosophies of the day.

However, the religious folks quickly took over than reformation and recreated a very similar system that you now call Christianity. In it God killed people for not coming clean about how much money they made on a sale of a property, etc.

If the teachings of Christianity were limited to the basic teachings of Christ, it is a great philosophy to follow (I’ll blog more about that later). However, it’s not. It’s riddled with mysticism and contradictions because it tried to adapt in the ancient texts.

Bottom line to my answer is this – if you take my view of morality vs. the view of another group (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.), how can you determine who is right? It’s all based on human views no matter if they CLAIM it’s divinely inspired.

Well, I know this many not mean much to an agnostic/athiest, but I do not believed the Bible actually condemns monogamous homosexual relationships. Most of the verses that people use against homosexuality are in reference to using sex for idol worship, power over someone else, or part of the Leviticus code that was God’s specific instructions to the Jews.

I also feel the same way about the mistreatment of women. I do not believe that God wants women to keep their mouths shut and take all the abuse that men can dole out. I don’t believe the Bible condones that, either.

The Bible has often been misinterpreted and incorrectly translated, so how do we know what we are reading today is even an accurate representation of the original text?

Here’s a very interested, easy-to-read article about the Bible’s views on homosexuality.

I am not a Bible-thumper by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s difficult to have conversations about gay rights without having religion brought into it. After all, religion is the ONLY basis for discrimination against gays.

My view is that religion is a personal choice and if kept to that level, I 100% support it. However, it’s when religion tries to force someone else into their system of beliefs. Mind you, I do not view basic human rights (to life, etc.) as religious ideas but they are a part of humanity.

I agree, but I believe more people would be inclined to believe in God if they knew that the Bible didn’t actually say all the mean things that people assume it does.

Many of us have been turned off from religion not because of religion itself, but because of the religious. We associate people of faith with discrimination, bias, and a narrow viewpoint. While that description fits in many cases, it doesn’t always apply.

There are religious people who strive for the true meaning of scripture, instead of taking verses at face value and out of context with the culture and time they were written in.

Dave,

As far as God establishing marriage between a man and a woman, I don’t think the story of Adam & Eve rules out other forms of matrimony, it simply doesn’t include them. Most marriages are between a man and a woman, and only they can reproduce, so why wouldn’t the story use them as an example?

Personally, I’m against evil. I define evil as an act that violates the rights of another individual. Murder & violence against others are up there as the ultimate evil. Stealing (since it’s taking something that belongs to another individual) is one of the lesser ones.

However, the focus is not what I’m against but what I am for. I am for living a life of compassion and kindness.

Brian, Leviticus 20:13 would appear to prclude the idea that a male/male relationship is valid and within the purview of Genesis 2:24. I know you think the Levitican passages are only applicable to the Jews, but you have not demonstrated why God would generally approve of homosexual marriage, but not for the Jews.

It’s interesting that you phrase what appears to be a reference to Romans 1 as a matter of using sex for idol worship. It appears from the use of “therefore” and “because” that the homosexual acts are a result of idol worship (or a rejection of worshipping the one true God) rather than a part of it. I’d look it up in the Greek when I get home to make sure I’ve got the grammatical sense of it correct, but I don’t think that would matter to you because you have no faith in the provenance of the text.

You seemed to have a limited view of biblical interpretation. Either the “true meaning” is discovered or it is taken at “face value”. It seems to me that by “true meaning” you mean an interpretation that is compatable with post-modern values and that everyone can be comfortable with. You appear to deny the possibility that God transcends culture and time, maintaining the same set of values and that the “face value” isn’t tied to the cultural millieu in which it was written.

It appears that you think the Bible should be interpreted (or re-interpreted) to fit in the comfort zone of people who have already decided their views of right and wrong, of what God should or shouldn’t be like. In other words, if we make God more likeable, more people will believe in Him.

I do not pretend to know everything about the Bible, which you have obviously studied well. However, the verses pertaining to “homosexuality” in the Bible have been rather interesting to me as a gay person.

First of all, I have a problem with any religion that calls me inherently evil or wrong because of something that I cannot change. I did not make a choice to be attracted to the same sex. I did choose to develop a relationship with a male, but the attraction would have been there either way.

Secondly, I do not believe that most of the passages in the Bible that are commonly used against gays are even referring to homosexuality as we know it today. Did you know a word equivalent to “homosexual” didn’t even exist when the Bible was written? Any interpretations that make use of it are incorrect and allowing personal bias to enter into the text.

The Holiness Code, which you refer to in Leviticus, was a set of instructions that God set for the Jews to distinguish them from the pagans. Many scholars consider the verse prohibiting male-on-male sex to be because God wanted them to multiply. They were nation building..

The Holiness Code also dictates that men can’t shave the edges of their beards, have sex with their wives during menstruation, or plant more than one crop in a field. Are any modern day Christians following those rules?

One thing that has always amazed and disturbed me about so-called New Testament churches, is the willingness to pick and choose verses from the OT that they consider convenient. Example, 10% tithing.

I understand what you are saying about people already having their minds made up and trying to make the Bible fit those beliefs, but that’s been going on forever. It’s nothing new, and because so much of the Bible is open to personal interpretation, it’s going to be that way for a long, long time.

Also, I think God transcends everything, including the Bible.

aA,

I guess you’re right to some extent, but I was considering the case against homosexuals more than anything else. This goes back to the OT/NT issue. Which one do we live by, and if it’s the NT, then why do we worry so much about what the OT says about social issues, etc?

Footnote – Just so you all know, I was raised in a very strict Pentecostal church. I quit attending in my late teens amid the turmoil over trying to reconcile my sexuality with the tenets of my religion.

After several years away from religion, I started attending a UCC church around a year ago, and am still struggling with my beliefs about God, religion, salvation, etc. I am not an expert in any of those areas, and don’t pretend to be. I’m just on a journey and trying to find answers to questions that are probably unanswerable.

The church that I am attending, with my partner, allows me to ask those questions without feeling like I am committing heresy. 🙂 Getting real answers is an entirely different story, but I’m still searching…

Quite frankly, I think religion as a whole is archaic and should be considered unsafe for public consumption. Really now, the very fact that such a debate is even happening in the 21st century is laughable. We this the 2nd century, then perhaps this debate could be understandable (although men in the 2nd century had no problem with being gay at all, so even they were more progressive than today’s religious people.

I’m just so tired of the whole thing and cannot wait until the whole world realises that none of this is even real. Sadly, it will probably take a nuclear war to accomplish that. If there was a god, he would surely be laughing at how stupid humanity acts after thousands of years of acquired wisdom.

Certainly some aspects of morality are drawn from a religious context, and there will always be aspects of those contexts that play out in our lives. However, to draw policy from that personal context is often where danger lies. This is not to say that a moral framework found within the “Judeo-Christian” ethos is undesireable since it comes from a religious framework. Indeed, most religions to their credit provide an ethical standard which typically:
1- Has a secular non religious benefit
2- Does not promote one religious belief unduly at the cost of another.
3- Does not unduly tie up secular government within a religious framework.

A disagreement with open homosexuals serving should have been made from a policy standpoint, from where the policy was drawn, and not one particular person’s view of moral – immoral behavior.

I have my own views about homosexuality, but they are my views. I also have views about public policies, such as “Don’t ask Don’t tell, gay marriage etc. but I always have tried to frame my viewpoints apart from my religious feelings – but with an eye towards the impact on public policy. It would be better if all discussions involving morality clashes – whether it is sexual choices, abortion, substance abuse policy, where not so heated in this is right this is wrong rhetoric, as individual liberty and choice about morality is always brought upon by one’s own perspective.

I happen to be Christian, and am not ashamed about its impact upon my philosophy, but the parts of my faith that have the greatest moral suasion in my own life, are those which emphasise loving my neighbor, which I interpret as having empathy, and trying to understand rather than judge or excuse.

The reason I’m claiming to be an agnostic atheist (without absolute knowledge that there is no God) is because I did not come to an absolute belief that there is no God. I came to the belief that all the definitions of God that we have are man made and therefore flawed.

Here is a link to The de-Convert’s other blog where he’s attempting to show that typical interpretation of the Bible doesn’t accurately describe God: Daily Bible Readings

Personally, I struggled for years to stay where you are but in the end decided to take the plunge to atheism (but not in an absolute sense).

In light of reading the Bible blog quoted above, please explain this statement:

I believe more people would be inclined to believe in God if they knew that the Bible didn’t actually say all the mean things that people assume it does.

#14
I don’t feel religion is absurd in modern society. Religion has traditionally been a part of world’s civilizations at large, and has typically when applied towards construction of societal frameworks had beneficial effects upon manking, and more often than not on the weakest members of that society. Have their been abuses, most certainly. Can a “belief” be empirically proven, of course not, as that is part of the mystery of faith.

At its most intimate, a faith in God, and accepting of a religious codes offers comfort and may provide personal insight. I am not condemning atheism or agnosticism. Woody Allen once said, “You see me as an atheist’ God sees me as the loyal opposition”. Nor, am I implying that people with a religious conciousness are inherently more moral than others. People are people, and are defined by their actions, not how they label themselves.

Nor, am I implying that people with a religious conciousness are inherently more moral than others. People are people, and are defined by their actions, not how they label themselves.

avor, this is a most excellent view.

18.Britt | October 14, 2007 at 12:19 am

In light of the recent controversy regarding homosexuality, there has been a continual, reoccurring, and common argument presented in a vain attempt to undermine God’s law and its obvious condemnation of this behavior. As I’ve preached and witnessed to sodomites on the streets and at college campuses for the past 20 years this is one of the first questions posed. The argument goes something like this…

“Doesn’t the Old Testament ‘holiness code’ also condemn eating shellfish and pork, and it says you must wear a certain type of clothing, etc. If you are going to condemn homosexuality, you should also condemn these things! If these things are acceptable, then so is homosexuality!”

This faulty reasoning is easily refuted and frankly, it is an embarrassment (this is true not because I disagree with its content but because it lacks a valid argument). It is truly pitiful to watch desperate men cling to straw-man arguments in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable while claiming to be superior in logic. Casual students of the Bible should not attempt to expound upon it. Anyone with even a basic working knowledge of the O.T. law cringes to see someone present such a poor specimen of Biblical exegesis. Incidentally, this is a prime example of someone judging truth, rather than allowing truth to judge them.

Now, bear with me as I expose the error of this common argument. The Bible contains two covenants, commonly referred to as the Old Testament and the New Testament. There are differences in purpose and content between these two covenants (which could be extensively elaborated on). Therefore, in discussing matters regarding the distinction between the “covenant of law” and the “covenant of grace” there are certain absolutes that we must recognize and understand:

[1] The law of God is divided into three spheres: civil, ceremonial, and moral.
[2] Christ came to fulfill the law.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”
Matthew 5:17

[3] The ceremonial law has been fulfilled by Christ and is no longer applicable for believers under the covenant of grace – rituals, dietary, circumcision, animal sacrifice, etc…

This is apparent for many reasons, namely: a) The Bible teaches this, (Rom 10:4; Heb 7:19; Heb 9-10) b) If kept, it must ALL be kept and this is impossible in that the temple/priesthood no longer exist (see: Rom 2:25). c) The Apostles made a clear distinction between O.T. ceremonial dictates and N.T. moral absolutes leaving no doubt that such ordinances were not to be considered N.T. commandments. For example:

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
1 Cor. 7:19

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Galatians 6:15

Consider that under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle Paul, referred to circumcision (an ordinance of O.T. ceremonial law) as nothing and that it neither availeth anything. Strong language if indeed we are to keep the ceremonial law.

[4] On the other hand, the moral law of God was likewise fulfilled in Christ but is still in effect under this covenant. Every moral commandment expressed in the O.T. has been reiterated in the New Testament (this includes laws and commandments forbidding fornication, adultery, incest, bestiality, and sodomy). Hence, the fulfilling of God’s moral law is an obligation, as it has always been, for all men, whereas, the ceremonial and civil laws were generally binding upon O.T. Israel. This is not to say that there is no wisdom expressed in the ceremonial and civil laws (much of the U.S. criminal code is based on Biblical civil law) but only that they are different and distinct from God’s eternal moral law. Therefore, a shallow comparison between the three in an attempt to present a contradiction, as those who use this argument do, is not only futile, but reveals an uninformed mind. I realize this is very brief, however, I am attempting to save time.

Thus, in summary: there are three types of laws in the “holiness code”: the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law. Only the Jews were obligated to keep the ceremonial and civil laws (dietary laws, etc.). However, all people are obligated to keep the moral law, which is written upon their consciences. The moral law is taught by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament. When they told people to repent or perish (Luke 13:3), they were commanding them to stop breaking God’s moral law. If you are not compliant with the moral law of God, which forbids all lust, including masturbation and homosexuality, you are headed for hell. But if you repent and trust in Jesus, who died for your sins, to save you and set you free, then you will be saved and set free by the power of God! He is not willing that any should perish, even sodomites, but that all should repent and find mercy for their crimes against God! No excuses! Call upon Jesus’ name now!

Needless to say, the O.T., as well as the N.T., clearly condemns homosexuality. An honest handling and interpretation of Scripture will yield nothing otherwise (Romans 1:21-28).

19.Anonymous | October 14, 2007 at 11:16 am

This MIGHT mean a lot to me, IF I believed in the bible. Which I don’t.

Britt, nice exegesis. What happens when “god” doesn’t follow his own “moral” codes, such as murder? But I suppose we can’t know god’s mind, right?

I actually quite agree with you, the Bible certainly says homosexuals are abominations, etc. So why not follow through with the Old Testament punishment if Jesus only came to fulfill the ceremonial laws? Why aren’t Christians today forcing our politicians to allow for the systematic stoning of everyone who leaves the gay bar?

And while you sitting there with the exegetical plank in your eye, are you wearing braids or any fancy jewelry that might draw a little bit of attention to yourself – I am sure that you will still get into heaven, but “Paul” would certainly be frowning at all you women wearing such frivolities.

Britt’s comment points out two great shames, the fact that people need to re-invent scriptural interpretations to be remotely ethical in today’s world, and that other people feel the need to justify their hatred and bigotry with ancient texts created by tribe in a era where the thirst for blood was the prime motivator in a group’s actions.

21.karen | October 14, 2007 at 5:37 pm

The problem with those who like to point out the ‘proper’ scriptural interpretations on various questions is that they are talking out of their asses, frankly.

Sorry, Britt, but you can confidently lay out your version of proper interpretation, and tomorrow someone else will come along and lay out an equally “proper” but totally contradictory interpretation! Each side (and there are usually four or five rather than just two) has its scholars, its language experts, its antiquities professors.

There’s no clear, obvious answer to any of these big questions provided by the bible or any other ancient text. They don’t speak to the issues we’re confronted with today because modern society has progressed so far, leaving them behind and woefully inadequate as texts written by primitive people in pre-scientific civilizations. It is high time to leave them go, in my opinion.

We now know that sexual orientation, like so many other human traits, is influenced by hormones and genetics – not by demon possession, madness or moral “failure.” That information really changes the conversation about how to treat homosexuals, doesn’t it? Since the bible doesn’t even acknowledge genetics, it really isn’t helpful to determining the appropriate response in the 21st century toward homosexuality.

22.LeoPardus | October 14, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Karen (and really anyone else):

Permit me to throw a possible curve ball into this discussion.

A thought on sexual orientation being intrinsic. For the moment, we’ll just say it is…. So? There’s quite a lot of evidence that alcoholism, tendencies toward violence, complacent personality, monomania, altruism and a host of other behaviors possess substantial intrinsic bases. But we don’t just say, “Let’s tolerate all those since they are inborn.” Instead we look at them and say, “Well, complacency isn’t too bad. We might give those folks some lessons on assertiveness so they don’t become doormats.” and “Hmmm… alcoholism is not at all good. We should help those folks learn to avoid alcohol for their own sakes and the sakes of others.”

Given that we approach many other behavioral orientations or predispositions by assessing their weaknesses and strengths, harm and benefit, and so on: why should we just look at homosexuality and say, “It’s just the way they are. Leave them be.” [Sorry. That sentence ran on didn’t it?]

Why not look at homosexuality in terms of potential risks, benefits, etc. and then, if notable risks loom, acknowledge them and deal with them? And if notable benefits are seen, acknowledge them?

Seems to me that the “Just let them be.” approach is not really the caring way.

Why not look at homosexuality in terms of potential risks, benefits, etc. and then, if notable risks loom, acknowledge them and deal with them? And if notable benefits are seen, acknowledge them?

I think that is what has happened and the issue is a non-issue. There is nothing inherently different between a heterosexual and a homosexual beyond their preference in sexual relations. Even indirect sexual issues, such as promiscuity and scary sexual “perversions” are been shown to be of equal quantity among the two persuasions. If we want to get all OT about it, why not look for what guys are “spilling their seed” and call them unclean (although maybe that is what 50% of the population does do).

Alcoholics hurt people because of their weakness. If alcoholics just drank themselves to death, there probably wouldn’t be such an issue. A homosexual is no more likely than the next guy to jump you in the alley so he can have anal sex with you. If a man wants to give oral sex to another man, how has this planet got any worse?

[…] a recent comment to our humble De-Conversion website from Britt, concerning homosexuality: In light of the recent […]

25.HeIsSailing | October 17, 2007 at 1:20 am

Britt,
You did not include your email, otherwise I would reply directly. As it is, I hope you read the followup I wrote to your comment. Of course, replies and comments are always welcome. Just click here:

I apologize, that wasn’t quite clear was it. The “inherently” was qualifying the “different,” not the homosexuality. A homosexual is only different than a heterosexual by what sex they are more or only attracted to. Homosexuals are not more promiscuous nor more violent. Almost any other difference in lifestyle by homosexuals can be contributed to the general intolerance of them by the outside community. As homosexuality becomes more accepted, how the lifestyle is perceived and even acted out will change – homosexuals will, and have, found it easier to walk in a mall holding hands than being forced into underground kink bars.

Attention Christian Readers

Today’s Most Read Posts

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.